The Republican Party is not a racist party. No tenet of conservative thought excludes or oppresses anyone based on race, sex, or class. Indeed, the Republican Party has a diverse and colorful history that defies your 21st century impression.
The main stream media has done a wonderful job of creating an association between the right and racism. They have done so by associating terms like “individual liberty” and “self reliance” with characteristics like “cold-hearted”, “indifferent”, and of course, “racist”. They’ve managed to create this association despite overwhelming evidence and matters of historical fact to the contrary.
There’s a page on the new GOP website that’s essentially a party time line.
www.gop.com/index.php/learn/accomplishment
Several historical achievements and milestones are highlighted. To be fair, there is a focus (to the point of being obvious) on milestones related to race and sex. But can you blame the GOP for selecting these events and persons? Someone has to set the record straight. I’ll accept the slant because the account is rooted in fact. It demonstrates a long history of firsts and accomplishments by Republicans of all races and both sexes, and for the benefit of the same.
I will complement my point by submitting to you that ties to racism are clearer and ever present within the Democratic Party. The ideology of entitlement has done more to oppress people of color and impede our collective ascendency than any group, event, principle, or law in the past 80 years. Hundreds of well intended, “compassionate” examples abound. I won’t cite any here – just ask any liberal politician what they’ve done, “for the people”… Your head will spin. Instead, I’ll make my point by counter example.
Let’s consider the NCAA’s proposition 48. Back in the 1980’s, this proposal raised the minimum SAT score of all student-athletes to a floor of 700. The naive assumption was that low-income, inner city blacks would be “shut out” of scholarship opportunities and the chance to escape the poverty and misery of their upbringing. Proposition 48 was deemed “racist”.
Proposition 48 passed. So what happened next? Were Division I college basketball teams suddenly taken over by white boys that couldn’t jump? No. Black high school student-athletes raised their game to meet the new academic standards. They continued to secure athletic scholarships. They graduated from college at higher rates because they were better prepared. The proposition, which was called “racist”, has actually improved the lives of thousands of African Americans. Imagine that – higher expectations yielded a better outcome.
If you’re Black, and a Democrat, ask yourself, ‘why?’ If your political ideology and sense of what’s best for this country line up with the left, that’s fine. But if you don’t know, or consider yourself a Dem because “my parents are”, or because “the left cares about us”, examine your reasoning. Personally, I’d like to see about a 50/50 split in the Black community, right vs. left. At least then, the Dems couldn’t take our votes for granted, and actually be held to account for the impact of their actions in our communities.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Friday, September 18, 2009
Racists? Or Opposed to Fundamental Transformation?
adj. fun·da·men·tal - of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts
Are those that openly protest against Obama's health care legislation racists, or opposed to fundamental transformation?
Let's tackle this head on. Let's forget about comments like, "Look at them... they're southerners and they're white, so they must be racists." Let's actually look at some numbers. Some proof (if it exists).
A number of weeks ago, I heard Chris Matthews on MSNBC suggest that since only 11% of Mississippi whites voted for Obama, and 52% of New York whites did the same, those that did not in the Mississippi must be racists. Did he even consider that most whites in Mississippi are conservatives, and wouldn't vote for any liberal, let alone the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate?
So as I watched Mr. Matthews use and misuse statistics (by the way - a great book and required reading for anyone with political aspirations), I asked myself, "what data would actually demonstrate his claim?"
Within a few seconds, it occurred to me that one would have to examine the voting record of white democrats in the north vs. the south. We have a natural control group here. Dems ususally vote for dems. If, in 2008, southern white dems did not vote for Obama while their northern counterparts did, it's a lot easier to suggest that the reason is because of race (still not a slam dunk, but easier than the logically unsound gopher ball Chris Matthews threw over my plate).
What I did.
To get at the answer, I looked 2008 exit poll data for democrats in seven contiguous southern states, and compared them to the same for seven contiguous northern states. (I couldn't find the data for 'white' democrats alone. If you have it, I'd be grateful... but these data should not be skewed that much as blacks largely voted for Obama - black democrats at an even higher rate). I gathered my data from the New York Times (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html)
What I found.
In the following southern states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee - the percentage of self declared democrats that voted for McCain were 14,12,9,11,9,8, and 13 respectively (obviously a bunch of red neck racists, right?).
In the following northern states: Connecticut,Maine,Massachusetts,New Hampshire,New York,Rhode Island, and Vermont the percentage of self declared democrats that voted for McCain were 7,10,13,8,8,8, and 3 respectively (northern bigots, the whole lot, no doubt?).
(It would be interesting to compare these departure rates against previous Presidential elections!)
So there it is. Southern democrats "out-bigoted" northern democrats 10.9% to 8.1%. Almost 3 points. Proof positive that they're racists. Right? After all, what other reason would a democrat have to vote for McCain (or more recently, oppose Obama-care) other than the color of Obama's skin?
So, Mr. Chris Matthews. Why don't you just ignore the fact that southerners tend to be more conservative - that they are more often than not are opposed to government intervention (even black southerners by the way).
Why don't you just put aside the fact that every House or Senate bill I've seen to date has been written by a white man, but the current administration made a calculated move to cash in political capital, and coin the phrase "Obama-care".
Mr. Matthews, ignore those among us that are neither southerners, nor white, but also don't want a "public option" or "socialized medicine".
Mr. Matthews and your like, please put all of these things aside. Go ahead and assume the worst of our fellow American, and call him something that is hard to prove and even harder to refute. Do so, and do it on a national stage. This way, you can shame him into silence. He dare not where that "Against a public option" t-shirt or go to his town hall meeting, lest he be called a racist.
And as you tear apart the few seems that had been mended by electing a black President, please measure the impact of your decisions.
And you dare call me and my like ideologues that don't care about practical matters? Shame on you.
Are those that openly protest against Obama's health care legislation racists, or opposed to fundamental transformation?
Let's tackle this head on. Let's forget about comments like, "Look at them... they're southerners and they're white, so they must be racists." Let's actually look at some numbers. Some proof (if it exists).
A number of weeks ago, I heard Chris Matthews on MSNBC suggest that since only 11% of Mississippi whites voted for Obama, and 52% of New York whites did the same, those that did not in the Mississippi must be racists. Did he even consider that most whites in Mississippi are conservatives, and wouldn't vote for any liberal, let alone the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate?
So as I watched Mr. Matthews use and misuse statistics (by the way - a great book and required reading for anyone with political aspirations), I asked myself, "what data would actually demonstrate his claim?"
Within a few seconds, it occurred to me that one would have to examine the voting record of white democrats in the north vs. the south. We have a natural control group here. Dems ususally vote for dems. If, in 2008, southern white dems did not vote for Obama while their northern counterparts did, it's a lot easier to suggest that the reason is because of race (still not a slam dunk, but easier than the logically unsound gopher ball Chris Matthews threw over my plate).
What I did.
To get at the answer, I looked 2008 exit poll data for democrats in seven contiguous southern states, and compared them to the same for seven contiguous northern states. (I couldn't find the data for 'white' democrats alone. If you have it, I'd be grateful... but these data should not be skewed that much as blacks largely voted for Obama - black democrats at an even higher rate). I gathered my data from the New York Times (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html)
What I found.
In the following southern states: Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee - the percentage of self declared democrats that voted for McCain were 14,12,9,11,9,8, and 13 respectively (obviously a bunch of red neck racists, right?).
In the following northern states: Connecticut,Maine,Massachusetts,New Hampshire,New York,Rhode Island, and Vermont the percentage of self declared democrats that voted for McCain were 7,10,13,8,8,8, and 3 respectively (northern bigots, the whole lot, no doubt?).
(It would be interesting to compare these departure rates against previous Presidential elections!)
So there it is. Southern democrats "out-bigoted" northern democrats 10.9% to 8.1%. Almost 3 points. Proof positive that they're racists. Right? After all, what other reason would a democrat have to vote for McCain (or more recently, oppose Obama-care) other than the color of Obama's skin?
So, Mr. Chris Matthews. Why don't you just ignore the fact that southerners tend to be more conservative - that they are more often than not are opposed to government intervention (even black southerners by the way).
Why don't you just put aside the fact that every House or Senate bill I've seen to date has been written by a white man, but the current administration made a calculated move to cash in political capital, and coin the phrase "Obama-care".
Mr. Matthews, ignore those among us that are neither southerners, nor white, but also don't want a "public option" or "socialized medicine".
Mr. Matthews and your like, please put all of these things aside. Go ahead and assume the worst of our fellow American, and call him something that is hard to prove and even harder to refute. Do so, and do it on a national stage. This way, you can shame him into silence. He dare not where that "Against a public option" t-shirt or go to his town hall meeting, lest he be called a racist.
And as you tear apart the few seems that had been mended by electing a black President, please measure the impact of your decisions.
And you dare call me and my like ideologues that don't care about practical matters? Shame on you.
Monday, September 14, 2009
I’m Coming Out of the Closet
I’ve made a decision. I’m coming out. I’m no longer afraid of the conversation. So here it is…
I’m a conservative. Openly and honestly, a conservative.
That’s it? Was that so tough?
Well, kind of… I guess it was tough. If it weren’t, why would I ‘hide’ my political ideology? Why would I avoid the conversation?
Last week, while on an eleven hundred mile domestic flight, I sat next to a very pleasant man that was returning home from a church mission trip. We sat and chatted about several topics for at least 2 hours. The conversation was engaging and enlightening. Some of the topics were ostensibly political, yet decidedly one sided. One sided, in that I did not show my cards. For example, on the topic of the exodus of American manufacturing jobs to China and India, I’d ask, “What do you think is the role of The Union in our loss of jobs in this sector?” I’d then digest his response and respond with a comment something like, “Interesting, very interesting”.
Or in a conversation about blacks moving into predominantly white neighborhoods, he’d say, “No way I’d live there… they don’t want us there… the cops are racists there”. And I’d say, “Wow. Interesting opinion”, instead of saying, “Hmmm. We have a very different world views…. the reasons you’ve cited are among the very reasons I’ve purchased 2 homes in predominantly white neighborhoods. I don’t think my race, bigoted opinions, or a cop’s ignorance should influence where I live” (by the way, the biggest factors in my choice of neighborhood have always been convenience and cost). Of course I could not, and did not say anything like that!
But why? Why so shy, Fred? How is it that right said fred, so vocal on this forum, could be ideologically emasculated to the point of passive denial? Truthfully, I’m not sure. But I have some ideas.
First of all, it’s not easy. It’s not easy to explain to someone why I feel the way I do. I’m much more comfortable doing so in print than in person. “Liberty and freedom should not stop at the city limits” is one of my personal mottos. It takes a long time to explain, and is so much easier when you have time to write down your retort.
Another reason… respect?
I guess so. This guy was older than me. He is also truly an African-American, where as I’m a naturalized African-American. I’ve been told (and it’s true), that I don’t have slave blood in me, and therefore, I can’t understand (not true). Anyway, the way I was raised, I must respect older, wiser folk. And that may mean not offending them.
I’ve got a lot of soul searching to do on this one. But no longer will I bite my tongue. Get ready, America – I’m out, and proud of it!
I’m a conservative. Openly and honestly, a conservative.
That’s it? Was that so tough?
Well, kind of… I guess it was tough. If it weren’t, why would I ‘hide’ my political ideology? Why would I avoid the conversation?
Last week, while on an eleven hundred mile domestic flight, I sat next to a very pleasant man that was returning home from a church mission trip. We sat and chatted about several topics for at least 2 hours. The conversation was engaging and enlightening. Some of the topics were ostensibly political, yet decidedly one sided. One sided, in that I did not show my cards. For example, on the topic of the exodus of American manufacturing jobs to China and India, I’d ask, “What do you think is the role of The Union in our loss of jobs in this sector?” I’d then digest his response and respond with a comment something like, “Interesting, very interesting”.
Or in a conversation about blacks moving into predominantly white neighborhoods, he’d say, “No way I’d live there… they don’t want us there… the cops are racists there”. And I’d say, “Wow. Interesting opinion”, instead of saying, “Hmmm. We have a very different world views…. the reasons you’ve cited are among the very reasons I’ve purchased 2 homes in predominantly white neighborhoods. I don’t think my race, bigoted opinions, or a cop’s ignorance should influence where I live” (by the way, the biggest factors in my choice of neighborhood have always been convenience and cost). Of course I could not, and did not say anything like that!
But why? Why so shy, Fred? How is it that right said fred, so vocal on this forum, could be ideologically emasculated to the point of passive denial? Truthfully, I’m not sure. But I have some ideas.
First of all, it’s not easy. It’s not easy to explain to someone why I feel the way I do. I’m much more comfortable doing so in print than in person. “Liberty and freedom should not stop at the city limits” is one of my personal mottos. It takes a long time to explain, and is so much easier when you have time to write down your retort.
Another reason… respect?
I guess so. This guy was older than me. He is also truly an African-American, where as I’m a naturalized African-American. I’ve been told (and it’s true), that I don’t have slave blood in me, and therefore, I can’t understand (not true). Anyway, the way I was raised, I must respect older, wiser folk. And that may mean not offending them.
I’ve got a lot of soul searching to do on this one. But no longer will I bite my tongue. Get ready, America – I’m out, and proud of it!
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Hark! All Ye Hypocrites!
To the conservatives attending town hall meetings on health care this Summer:
You are hypocrites.
Not all of you, of course, but you know who you are.
As a rule, you rebuke college students that shout down conservative voices visiting their campuses. You reprimand Code Pink for their forays into organized civic functions. Given the opportunity, you reference every American's right to free speech protected in the first amendment.
And there you are, shouting down your fairly elected representative. Yelling and screaming, as though your point will be clearer with greater amplitude. Shame on you. Have you no conscience?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The poor behavior of one does not justify the same in another. Take the high road, people. Let your numbers and the validity of your argument speak for themselves.
I'll be attending Jim Moran's town hall meeting in Virginia's 8th congressional district on August 25th at 7:00 PM at South Lakes High School. Please join me, and let's behave:)
You are hypocrites.
Not all of you, of course, but you know who you are.
As a rule, you rebuke college students that shout down conservative voices visiting their campuses. You reprimand Code Pink for their forays into organized civic functions. Given the opportunity, you reference every American's right to free speech protected in the first amendment.
And there you are, shouting down your fairly elected representative. Yelling and screaming, as though your point will be clearer with greater amplitude. Shame on you. Have you no conscience?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The poor behavior of one does not justify the same in another. Take the high road, people. Let your numbers and the validity of your argument speak for themselves.
I'll be attending Jim Moran's town hall meeting in Virginia's 8th congressional district on August 25th at 7:00 PM at South Lakes High School. Please join me, and let's behave:)
Friday, July 31, 2009
Doctor, get off my back! That costs too much!
By way of example, I'll tell you the real problem with health care in America. It's got less to do with tort law and access, and more to do with who's name is in the top left corner of the check.
I took a spill about a week ago. It's a miracle that I didn't break any bones. I was in a lot of pain, and needed to see a doctor. I asked friends for recommendations, and found a chiropractor nearby. Now having medical insurance through my employer, I went to the doctor's office without batting an eyelash... "I'll probably have to make a $20 co-pay or something, $50 at the worst", I thought.
Following the initial consultation, I paid $165 out of pocket, expecting that I'd see most of that money again when my insurance provider got the bill. I instructed the receptionist, "Please verify that your services are covered by my insurance provider, or you'll never see me again." "Of course, sir. When you return in the morning, we'll have that answer for you".
Fast forward one day. I show up for my appointment, and against my better judgment, went straight back for treatment without my answer. At the end of the session, I asked the question again. "I'm sorry, sir. We have not been able to confirm that your insurance provider covers our services. That will be $125, please". Ouch! "Okay, I'll pay for the services, but you'll never see me again until you can confirm coverage". "Of course, sir. Accept my apology, and a phone call later this afternoon with confirmation. Have a nice day."
You can probably guess what happened next... you guessed it, "Not covered". So there I was. $290 lighter on the back side, still in pain and needing treatment, but unwilling to fork over $100 a pop (pun intended) for treatment. So what did I do next? I did the same thing we all do for auto insurance, groceries, housing, etc. I shopped around! I entered the marketplace and sought out a merchant that met 2 requirements: quality and price.
The ubiquitous consumer practice of shopping around is absent (or at least compromised) in health care. As things are today, I (the consumer) have no motivation to seek out an ultimately less expensive alternative (as long as the service is "covered", I generally don't care how much my provider is paying).
It gets worse. During an unrelated stream of dialogue, I asked the same doctor where he sends his blood samples for processing. "I use one of the big two - it's totally random. It depends on which form I pull out.", he said. "Are their rates comparable?", I asked. "I don't know. Most of the time, the patient's insurance covers the cost, so it doesn't matter to me", he replied.
So there you have it. A system in which purchasing decisions are made on both ends by individuals with no pecuniary responsibility! It is a run-away train that needs to be derailed, or we're all doomed to spend ourselves into poorer health.
But changed to what? Changed for the sake of change? Changed to something that will exacerbate the problem? "But at least we did something". Are you kidding me?!
Adding a so called public option will not control costs. To the contrary, it seems obvious to me that it will increase costs. It seems obvious that the public option will destabilize the last remnants of market competition, a force that we all know controls costs (though not to a proper degree in this case because it's not a true market).
Is the United States Postal Service (USPS) as efficient as FedEx or UPS? Does the USPS drive down the cost of parcel transfer? Of course not. So if we see that logic, why on earth would we believe that government provided health care could reduce the cost of seeing the doctor, let alone cost less (as is being touted by President Obama and some members of Congress).
I could refute ethical arguments justifying public health care. I could get into the ideology and politics of forced compassion. Here, I have done neither. I've only attempted to demonstrate the lunacy in believing that a public option could or will improve our collective financial position with respect to health care. It's laughable.
I welcome your comments and dialogue.
I took a spill about a week ago. It's a miracle that I didn't break any bones. I was in a lot of pain, and needed to see a doctor. I asked friends for recommendations, and found a chiropractor nearby. Now having medical insurance through my employer, I went to the doctor's office without batting an eyelash... "I'll probably have to make a $20 co-pay or something, $50 at the worst", I thought.
Following the initial consultation, I paid $165 out of pocket, expecting that I'd see most of that money again when my insurance provider got the bill. I instructed the receptionist, "Please verify that your services are covered by my insurance provider, or you'll never see me again." "Of course, sir. When you return in the morning, we'll have that answer for you".
Fast forward one day. I show up for my appointment, and against my better judgment, went straight back for treatment without my answer. At the end of the session, I asked the question again. "I'm sorry, sir. We have not been able to confirm that your insurance provider covers our services. That will be $125, please". Ouch! "Okay, I'll pay for the services, but you'll never see me again until you can confirm coverage". "Of course, sir. Accept my apology, and a phone call later this afternoon with confirmation. Have a nice day."
You can probably guess what happened next... you guessed it, "Not covered". So there I was. $290 lighter on the back side, still in pain and needing treatment, but unwilling to fork over $100 a pop (pun intended) for treatment. So what did I do next? I did the same thing we all do for auto insurance, groceries, housing, etc. I shopped around! I entered the marketplace and sought out a merchant that met 2 requirements: quality and price.
The ubiquitous consumer practice of shopping around is absent (or at least compromised) in health care. As things are today, I (the consumer) have no motivation to seek out an ultimately less expensive alternative (as long as the service is "covered", I generally don't care how much my provider is paying).
It gets worse. During an unrelated stream of dialogue, I asked the same doctor where he sends his blood samples for processing. "I use one of the big two - it's totally random. It depends on which form I pull out.", he said. "Are their rates comparable?", I asked. "I don't know. Most of the time, the patient's insurance covers the cost, so it doesn't matter to me", he replied.
So there you have it. A system in which purchasing decisions are made on both ends by individuals with no pecuniary responsibility! It is a run-away train that needs to be derailed, or we're all doomed to spend ourselves into poorer health.
But changed to what? Changed for the sake of change? Changed to something that will exacerbate the problem? "But at least we did something". Are you kidding me?!
Adding a so called public option will not control costs. To the contrary, it seems obvious to me that it will increase costs. It seems obvious that the public option will destabilize the last remnants of market competition, a force that we all know controls costs (though not to a proper degree in this case because it's not a true market).
Is the United States Postal Service (USPS) as efficient as FedEx or UPS? Does the USPS drive down the cost of parcel transfer? Of course not. So if we see that logic, why on earth would we believe that government provided health care could reduce the cost of seeing the doctor, let alone cost less (as is being touted by President Obama and some members of Congress).
I could refute ethical arguments justifying public health care. I could get into the ideology and politics of forced compassion. Here, I have done neither. I've only attempted to demonstrate the lunacy in believing that a public option could or will improve our collective financial position with respect to health care. It's laughable.
I welcome your comments and dialogue.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
White Oppression, 21st Century Style
Well, it's official. It's okay to impute white men for any malady that befalls us. Feel free to openly state, "what goes around comes around". Fear not as you affirm that selecting a white man in lieu of anyone else is "disgraceful". Say these things and more, and do so without fear of reproach.
As we get our daily updates on the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings, newspaper op-eds and blog posts abound with this new-found freedom of expression. It's not that white men are for the first time "evil". The difference is now, it's mainstream.
Consider the following:
In Whose Identity Politics?, Washington Post Op-Ed columnist Eugene Robinson wrote,
"Yes, justice is supposed to be blind. But for most of our nation's history, it hasn't been -- and women and minorities are acutely aware of how our view of justice has evolved, or been forced to evolve."
More overtly, The New York Times' Maureen Dowd stated in White Man's Last Stand,
"It was a disgrace that W. appointed two white men to a court stocked with white men."
Why is this kind of rhetoric acceptable? What happened to Dr. King's dream? Does it not include white men?
I'll start by dissecting Mr. Robinson's excerpt. He starts by stating that justice has not been blind for women and minorities (true). I'll assume he's inferring that most of the injustice has been adjudicated by white men (also true). Mr. Robinson is trying to excuse Judge Sotomayor's empathetic approach to Law (my opinion). If I can paraphrase, "Since white men did it to us, we can/should now do it to them, or at least be excused for doing so. What goes around comes around!"
Before I get to my point, let's turn for a moment to Ms. Dowd's comment. So selecting two white men from a pool of mostly white men is a disgrace, huh? Then where on the "disgrace meter" does Bill Clinton fall for appointing Stephen Breyer to the highest court in the land? The last time I checked, justice Beyer is white. And What about Bush 41? He appointed two conservative men - ouch! But Justice Thomas is black, so does he get any points for that? Am I to assume that you agree with Sotomayor, and feel that qualified white men must be overlooked?
All of this is troubling to me. In America, it's racism and sexism. In my native Kenya, it's tribalism. On either continent, the oppressed feel justified in retribution through an "it's our turn to eat" mentality. It's unfair and unwise. It's taking the low road, and it inflicts a condition of inequality across more levels than it heals. If this kind of rhetoric is not challenged at its core, we can never get to an "all are equal" society. I sometimes get the feeling that there are those that benefit from inequality, and they are willing to do anything to maintain it - and they ain't white men (at least not exclusively).
I'm not suggesting we feel sorry for white men. Nor am I about to propose a government program to help oppressed white men all over this land. After all, being white and male are still great commodities. it's just simply not fair to treat anyone like this because of the past (or the present). And this, from people who claim that their political party has moral authority on fairness. Wow.
As we get our daily updates on the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings, newspaper op-eds and blog posts abound with this new-found freedom of expression. It's not that white men are for the first time "evil". The difference is now, it's mainstream.
Consider the following:
In Whose Identity Politics?, Washington Post Op-Ed columnist Eugene Robinson wrote,
"Yes, justice is supposed to be blind. But for most of our nation's history, it hasn't been -- and women and minorities are acutely aware of how our view of justice has evolved, or been forced to evolve."
More overtly, The New York Times' Maureen Dowd stated in White Man's Last Stand,
"It was a disgrace that W. appointed two white men to a court stocked with white men."
Why is this kind of rhetoric acceptable? What happened to Dr. King's dream? Does it not include white men?
I'll start by dissecting Mr. Robinson's excerpt. He starts by stating that justice has not been blind for women and minorities (true). I'll assume he's inferring that most of the injustice has been adjudicated by white men (also true). Mr. Robinson is trying to excuse Judge Sotomayor's empathetic approach to Law (my opinion). If I can paraphrase, "Since white men did it to us, we can/should now do it to them, or at least be excused for doing so. What goes around comes around!"
Before I get to my point, let's turn for a moment to Ms. Dowd's comment. So selecting two white men from a pool of mostly white men is a disgrace, huh? Then where on the "disgrace meter" does Bill Clinton fall for appointing Stephen Breyer to the highest court in the land? The last time I checked, justice Beyer is white. And What about Bush 41? He appointed two conservative men - ouch! But Justice Thomas is black, so does he get any points for that? Am I to assume that you agree with Sotomayor, and feel that qualified white men must be overlooked?
All of this is troubling to me. In America, it's racism and sexism. In my native Kenya, it's tribalism. On either continent, the oppressed feel justified in retribution through an "it's our turn to eat" mentality. It's unfair and unwise. It's taking the low road, and it inflicts a condition of inequality across more levels than it heals. If this kind of rhetoric is not challenged at its core, we can never get to an "all are equal" society. I sometimes get the feeling that there are those that benefit from inequality, and they are willing to do anything to maintain it - and they ain't white men (at least not exclusively).
I'm not suggesting we feel sorry for white men. Nor am I about to propose a government program to help oppressed white men all over this land. After all, being white and male are still great commodities. it's just simply not fair to treat anyone like this because of the past (or the present). And this, from people who claim that their political party has moral authority on fairness. Wow.
Friday, June 19, 2009
Barack Obama Is Not Black
A few week's ago, I was watching the news with a friend - there was a story about Barack Obama and Oprah Winfrey, and how they're among the most influential African Americans in the United States. I said to my friend, "Barack Obama is not black". Of course, I had to explain.
Virtually everything about Barack Obama's presidency to date has had little or nothing to do with his skin color. His policies, his speeches, praise heaped upon him, ridicule of his decisions... his skin color almost never comes up.
The political right are opposed to him on the basis of his ideology, and the decisions he makes based on it. His supporters are behind him for the same reason. Footnote: a lot of African-Americans and Africans alike favor Obama solely on the basis of his skin color or paternal lineage. These are good reasons to recognize and celebrate a historical achievement, not to blindly support a leader or political agenda (just my opinion). It's also true that the amplitude of his criticism is greater because he's black (I don't think anyone can deny that - economic or social minorities in every society, not just in America, have a higher bar to clear). End footnote.
So what's my point? Here it is, let's get it out. Race matters not! Success or failure are governed more by what an individual says and does, than by his skin color.
If Barack Obama had latched onto race as a political identifier, he would not be President. Instead, he sought a human condition (economic injustice) as the foundation of his philosophy. He has this, not putting race first, in common with other successful minorities (isn't it ironic then, how the left use race and class to divide us?).
Of course there are exceptions. A Chinese restaurant in Iowa must not assimilate to the degree of putting apple pie on the menu. An African-American musician should by all means draw upon generations of experiences and tradition unique to her culture to belt out a ballad. But for most of us, race matters not. Cash registers, Excel spreadsheets, and cement mixers don't care about race. When will we be as blind?
While we're talking about race, let me ask a question. Black people, I'm talking to you... when will it be enough? When will we have enough success and achievement to put Jesse Jackson out of business? This is not a rhetorical question - I'd really like an answer. What degree of equality are we seeking here? At what point will we look in the collective mirror, and take responsibility for our given condition?
Post Script
Many year's ago, I read a short political treatise by Chinua Achebe - The Trouble with Nigeria. Near the beginning of the book, Achebe asserted that the President of Nigeria did not live in Nigeria - a statement that was simply not true. He went on to explain what he meant, but the shock value of the statement had by then succeeded - I was sucked in, and continued reading. So I am in debt. If you stopped to read this post simply because of the weird title, it's owed to the literary genius of Mr. Achebe.
Virtually everything about Barack Obama's presidency to date has had little or nothing to do with his skin color. His policies, his speeches, praise heaped upon him, ridicule of his decisions... his skin color almost never comes up.
The political right are opposed to him on the basis of his ideology, and the decisions he makes based on it. His supporters are behind him for the same reason. Footnote: a lot of African-Americans and Africans alike favor Obama solely on the basis of his skin color or paternal lineage. These are good reasons to recognize and celebrate a historical achievement, not to blindly support a leader or political agenda (just my opinion). It's also true that the amplitude of his criticism is greater because he's black (I don't think anyone can deny that - economic or social minorities in every society, not just in America, have a higher bar to clear). End footnote.
So what's my point? Here it is, let's get it out. Race matters not! Success or failure are governed more by what an individual says and does, than by his skin color.
If Barack Obama had latched onto race as a political identifier, he would not be President. Instead, he sought a human condition (economic injustice) as the foundation of his philosophy. He has this, not putting race first, in common with other successful minorities (isn't it ironic then, how the left use race and class to divide us?).
Of course there are exceptions. A Chinese restaurant in Iowa must not assimilate to the degree of putting apple pie on the menu. An African-American musician should by all means draw upon generations of experiences and tradition unique to her culture to belt out a ballad. But for most of us, race matters not. Cash registers, Excel spreadsheets, and cement mixers don't care about race. When will we be as blind?
While we're talking about race, let me ask a question. Black people, I'm talking to you... when will it be enough? When will we have enough success and achievement to put Jesse Jackson out of business? This is not a rhetorical question - I'd really like an answer. What degree of equality are we seeking here? At what point will we look in the collective mirror, and take responsibility for our given condition?
Post Script
Many year's ago, I read a short political treatise by Chinua Achebe - The Trouble with Nigeria. Near the beginning of the book, Achebe asserted that the President of Nigeria did not live in Nigeria - a statement that was simply not true. He went on to explain what he meant, but the shock value of the statement had by then succeeded - I was sucked in, and continued reading. So I am in debt. If you stopped to read this post simply because of the weird title, it's owed to the literary genius of Mr. Achebe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
